The two sides, according to social media, appear to be: 1) there is no justice in a young man being approached by a man with a gun, confronted and ultimately killed with no conviction of the older man vs., 2) the evidence didn’t support a guilty verdict so don’t be mad about the outcome.
The story is the same, the known facts leading to these two positions are available to each side, so how to the two opinions differ so greatly? It’s the lens.
The first lens is impacted by generations of disenfranchisement and hurt. This country has a history in the area of racial justice that is simply not good. Some things have been corrected, but the remnant of our heritage is deep in the core of those who have been impacted by the offenses. If any one of us hasn’t lived through that, we can’t fully understand that but at least we can attempt to allow for that. Maybe even try to reconcile that.
The other lens has a heritage which has not experienced the same kind of systemic abuse. Without intimate exposure to injustice which extends beyond anecdotal, there is no way to appreciate the distrust, hurt and anger. Justice through the system holds a different level of expectation and trust.
Who’s right? Maybe neither, maybe both; what does it matter? The choice for each perspective is what to do with it. Where there is hurt and grieving, grieve with those that grieve. Where there is offense, forgive. Or not, and we all retain the status quo which apparently is not entirely healthy.
I have opinions on the facts as I know them and the verdict as I understand it but they aren’t really important. What is important is how I relate to people who I have the opportunity to relate with and that I do so with some understanding.